使用拐杖和步行鞋对步态时全身角动量的影响

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Assistive Technology Pub Date : 2024-03-03 Epub Date: 2023-07-27 DOI:10.1080/10400435.2023.2229879
Robert C Wiederien, Wesley J Gari, Jason M Wilken
{"title":"使用拐杖和步行鞋对步态时全身角动量的影响","authors":"Robert C Wiederien, Wesley J Gari, Jason M Wilken","doi":"10.1080/10400435.2023.2229879","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Crutches are the most prescribed ambulatory assistive device and are used for mobility and maintaining weight-bearing restrictions after injury or surgery. However, standard axillary crutches (SACs) can lead to overuse and other injuries and restrict upper limb movement. Hands-free crutches (HFC) do not restrict upper limb movement but their effect on balance control, with or without commonly prescribed walking boots, is poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of crutch type (SACs vs. HFC) and boot use on whole-body angular momentum (RAM), a measure of balance control. Participant's balance confidence, pain, comfort, and device preference were assessed. Seventeen participants were evaluated while walking without a crutch (NONE), with SACs, and with an HFC, and walked with and without a walking boot in each crutch condition. The gait pattern used with SACs resulted in significantly greater limb angular velocity (<i>p</i> < .05), and an 84% increase in RAM (<i>p</i> < .001) as compared to the HFC. There were no differences between the SAC and HFC for balance confidence, pain, or comfort, however most (71.1%) participants preferred the HFCs. These results suggest that individuals can better control angular momentum with the HFCs and thus may be less susceptible to loss of balance.</p>","PeriodicalId":51568,"journal":{"name":"Assistive Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10818012/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of crutch and walking-boot use on whole-body angular momentum during gait.\",\"authors\":\"Robert C Wiederien, Wesley J Gari, Jason M Wilken\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10400435.2023.2229879\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Crutches are the most prescribed ambulatory assistive device and are used for mobility and maintaining weight-bearing restrictions after injury or surgery. However, standard axillary crutches (SACs) can lead to overuse and other injuries and restrict upper limb movement. Hands-free crutches (HFC) do not restrict upper limb movement but their effect on balance control, with or without commonly prescribed walking boots, is poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of crutch type (SACs vs. HFC) and boot use on whole-body angular momentum (RAM), a measure of balance control. Participant's balance confidence, pain, comfort, and device preference were assessed. Seventeen participants were evaluated while walking without a crutch (NONE), with SACs, and with an HFC, and walked with and without a walking boot in each crutch condition. The gait pattern used with SACs resulted in significantly greater limb angular velocity (<i>p</i> < .05), and an 84% increase in RAM (<i>p</i> < .001) as compared to the HFC. There were no differences between the SAC and HFC for balance confidence, pain, or comfort, however most (71.1%) participants preferred the HFCs. These results suggest that individuals can better control angular momentum with the HFCs and thus may be less susceptible to loss of balance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assistive Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10818012/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assistive Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2023.2229879\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assistive Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2023.2229879","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

拐杖是最常用的辅助工具,用于受伤或手术后的移动和维持负重限制。然而,标准腋拐(SAC)会导致过度使用和其他损伤,并限制上肢活动。免提拐杖(HFC)不会限制上肢运动,但其对平衡控制的影响却鲜为人知,无论是否穿着常用的助行靴。本研究的目的是比较拐杖类型(SACs 与 HFC)和靴子的使用对全身角动量(RAM)的影响,这是一种平衡控制措施。研究还评估了参与者的平衡信心、疼痛感、舒适度和设备偏好。17 名参与者分别在无拐杖(无)、使用 SACs 和 HFC 的情况下进行了评估,并在每种拐杖条件下使用或不使用助行靴行走。使用 SAC 的步态模式明显增加了肢体角速度(p p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effect of crutch and walking-boot use on whole-body angular momentum during gait.

Crutches are the most prescribed ambulatory assistive device and are used for mobility and maintaining weight-bearing restrictions after injury or surgery. However, standard axillary crutches (SACs) can lead to overuse and other injuries and restrict upper limb movement. Hands-free crutches (HFC) do not restrict upper limb movement but their effect on balance control, with or without commonly prescribed walking boots, is poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of crutch type (SACs vs. HFC) and boot use on whole-body angular momentum (RAM), a measure of balance control. Participant's balance confidence, pain, comfort, and device preference were assessed. Seventeen participants were evaluated while walking without a crutch (NONE), with SACs, and with an HFC, and walked with and without a walking boot in each crutch condition. The gait pattern used with SACs resulted in significantly greater limb angular velocity (p < .05), and an 84% increase in RAM (p < .001) as compared to the HFC. There were no differences between the SAC and HFC for balance confidence, pain, or comfort, however most (71.1%) participants preferred the HFCs. These results suggest that individuals can better control angular momentum with the HFCs and thus may be less susceptible to loss of balance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Assistive Technology
Assistive Technology REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Assistive Technology is an applied, scientific publication in the multi-disciplinary field of technology for people with disabilities. The journal"s purpose is to foster communication among individuals working in all aspects of the assistive technology arena including researchers, developers, clinicians, educators and consumers. The journal will consider papers from all assistive technology applications. Only original papers will be accepted. Technical notes describing preliminary techniques, procedures, or findings of original scientific research may also be submitted. Letters to the Editor are welcome. Books for review may be sent to authors or publisher.
期刊最新文献
Usability of an augmented reality bedtime routine application for autistic children. Rehabilitation professional and user evaluation of an integrated push-pull lever drive system for wheelchair mobility. Development and content validation of the Electronic Instrumental activities of daily living Satisfaction Assessment (EISA) outcome tool. Design and evaluation of the Afari: A three-wheeled mobility and balance support device for outdoor exercise. Intelligent assistive technology devices for persons with dementia: A scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1